What Next for the GOP?

[Hooahguy]

to quote Neal Boortz from here.

WHERE DO REPUBLICANS GO FROM HERE

What is clear is that the Republican Party has failed on so many levels. I'm not talking about John McCain, I'm talking about the Republican Party. A party that was supposed to reflect the Conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, among others, got completely drunk with power. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Republicans also failed to communicate a message that people could understand. Only in the last days, when Joe the Plumber arrived, did a light bulb flicker. But it shouldn't have taken one man in Ohio to do it. John McCain should have spent months hammering Obama's Marxist tendencies -- his 95% tax cut lies -- his cutting capital gains for small businesses. As a party Republicans failed to rally a base that reflected its core values. Maybe that is because those core values no longer exist for the Republicans in power. Just take a look at the past eight years. But somehow, before the next election, they must figure out which direction they want to take their party, and they must believe it, market it, and most importantly – live up to it.

If the Republicans don't learn from this, that is their own fault. They created Barack Obama. They created a Congressional Democrat majority. But they also have the power to re-create their party. Some pundits are worried that this "new direction" will be more socially Conservative. Perhaps that's exactly what we need! My preference would be to see a move back to basic principles of individualism, freedom, economic liberty, self sufficiency and pride in our Country ... with a highlight on individualism. Barack Obama is merely a continuation of the leftist war against the concept of the individual. Democrats look at us as tools ... tools to be used to create some sort of an egalitarian society. Can the Republicans make this point to the voters? Hint: Republicans need to look to the Libertarian Party for some ideas on how to promote the idea of individualism and fight the concept of the individual as government property.

[Lemur]

Wow, Republicans created Barack Obama. Who knew? And why should I pay to a "writer" who is incapable of using the word "Democratic" correctly? Last I checked, only the most nose-thumbing partisan hacks were still on that linguistic kick.

If writers like this are going to provide the blueprint, I expect to see the Republicans in the wilderness for a long, long time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I expect every bit of bad news about the economy to be blamed on president obama.

[Koga No Goshi]

There seems to be a huge base essential to conservative electoral success which almost seems anti-intellectual, i thought it was intresting that college educated males went mainly to obama,

There's nothing "almost" anti-intellectual about it. The history of anti-intellectualism in America is long and well documented both by Americans and third party social observers and writers.

of the different groups they discussed only white males without a college education went more for mccain than obama (the groups were blacks, hispanics, college education and not college educated)

This is precisely what was pandered to, along with the religious right and the economic elite/corporate constituencies, by the McCain campaign. But when I mentioned that in the election thread a lot of people got personally offended and said Obama's campaign targetting was no higher. The results, of course, don't bear that out at all.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Your possible 2012 GOP primary.

According to the blog post, we're looking at candidates from four establishments of the GOP: The Populist (either Huck or Palin), the Establishment Conservative (the author suggests Jeb Bush, but that'll never happen in a million years, so it's Romney), the Full-Spectrum Conservative (Jindal), and the National Security Candidate (Gen. Petraeus). Admittedly, I can't see Petraeus or Jeb running, and the author makes a good point about Jindal's waiting a while before he tries for the Presidency.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As promised, here's my initial thoughts on what the Republican field will look like in four years. Obviously, there are many variables along the way, ranging from how beatable Obama looks to the 2010 midterms; I'm just forecasting with the known knowns we have today. As usual there will probably be 10 or so candidates, but from where we sit today there look to be four slots from which to put together a credible primary campaign:

(1) The Populist Candidate: With its Washington leadership beheaded, the GOP is likely to become more of a populist and culturally conservative party in the next four years. Mike Huckabee showed this year the power and the limitations of a pure populist campaign, far exceeding expectations with nearly no resources or name recognition (although Huck was out of step with the populists on one of the major causes of grassroots frustration with DC, immigration). Against the backdrop of a tax-spend-regulate Obama Administration, a crucial challenge will be squaring populism with the GOP's need to appeal to economic and fiscal conservatives to expand out of the Huck-size niche. Realistically, the populist candidate is likely to end up as the most moderate serious candidate in the field.

As things stand today, Sarah Palin is the obvious populist candidate and, for now, the very-very-early frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, given her now-massive name recognition (the woman's every TV appearance is a ratings bonanza), amazing talents as a retail politician, appeal to the base, and the GOP tendency towards nominating the next in line. Granted, only two candidates in the part century (Bob Dole and Franklin D. Roosevelt) have won a major party nomination after being the VP nominee for a losing ticket (not counting Mondale, who'd already been VP), those two waited 12 and 20 years before doing so, respectively, and recent history has been unkind to those who tried (Edwards 2008, Lieberman 2004 - see also Quayle 2000).

I'll expand another day on the challenges facing Gov. Palin - the short answer is that inexperience is the easiest thing in the world to fix, but she'll have to face tougher budgetary times in Alaska in light of falling oil revenues, she'll have to withstand what is likely to be an ongoing national campaign by the Democrats to take her down or hobble her re-election efforts to cut off the likeliest threat to Obama, and she'll have to develop and sell her own, independent agenda and demonstrate a greater breadth and depth of knowledge on national politics than are required from the running mate slot. Upside in the primaries: the socially conservative, moose-hunting hockey mom could potentially be well-suited to the early GOP primary/caucus electorates in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.

(2) The Establishment Candidate: The GOP by tradition tends to fall in behind whoever is the candidate of the establishment - of country clubs and boardrooms and Beltway insiders. Part of being a Republican, of course, is having the maturity to understand that being the establishment candidate is not a bad thing. But an angry grassroots is going to take some serious persuading to pick another establishment figure.

The best establishment candidate should be Jeb Bush, for a variety of reasons, but four years won't be enough - if any length of time is - to rebuild the Bush brand within the GOP, let alone the general electorate. That leaves Mitt Romney as the logical next step; Mitt is currently out of office and thus less equipped to get more experience, but he'll have the money and energy to spend four years staking himself out as a consistent conservative voice and putting the distance of time between 2012 and the flip-flop charges of 2008. South Dakota Senator John Thune is also sometimes mentioned, but after 1964, 1996 and now 2008, the GOP has hopefully learned its lesson about nominating legislators for President, especially sitting Senators. Newly re-elected Indiana Governor and former Bush budget director Mitch Daniels (see here and here) will have his name come up but more likely as a VP nominee.

(3) The Full-Spectrum Conservative: The Fred Thompson role from 2008 but one that will pack a lot more potential appeal in 2012. Bobby Jindal is the best of the lot, but while he's already got an impressive resume, Jindal's so young (he's 37, which makes him the age Romney was in 1985), so he can afford to wait out several more election cycles; he's up for re-election in 2011, which makes running in 2012 very problematic; and he really and genuinely wants to stay in Louisiana long enough to make real changes in his beloved home state's legendarily corrupt and dysfunctional political culture. The other main contender for this slot is South Carolina's Governor Mark Sanford, now in his second term as Governor after 3 in Congress. SC is the most favorable turf for a candidate of this type among the early primary states, so with Sanford running as a favorite son he could basically block out any other challengers, and if he doesn't run for re-election in 2010 (offhand I don't know whether he's term-limited), he'd have a logistical advantage over Palin, who will presumably still be in office as governor of a geographically remote state.

(4) The National Security Candidate: After four years of Obama, there's also likely to be strong sentiment for adult leadership on national security. Traditionally, the GOP has tended to prioritize this issue (in 2008, both McCain and Giuliani ran primarily as national security candidates). But especially with Senators in disfavor, the supply of candidates with more national security credentials than a typical Governor is short - most of the Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld types in the party will be past their prime by 2012, and I continue to doubt that Condi Rice could be a viable candidate for a multitude of reasons. The name you're likely to hear is CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, but Gen. Petraeus - who I assume will remain on active duty for another year or two, at least, and who President Obama dare not fire - has no political experience and no known domestic-policy profile (we don't even know if he's a Republican). My guess is that if we nominate a governor in 2012, Gen. Petraeus will be much in demand as a running mate. After that, I'm not sure who will even try to fill this slot in the primaries.

Sorry, but that's the list; the no-more-McCains sentiment among the base will make it impossible for someone like Tim Pawlenty to mount a credible campaign as a moderate, nobody will bother trying to re-create the crippling damage inflicted on Rudy Giuliani from running with a record as a social liberal, and no Ron Paul type candidate (especially Ron Paul) is ever going to make a serious dent. It's those four slots or bust.

And I, for one, am definitely not committing yet to who I'll support as between Palin or a Sanford or Jindal run or maybe somebody else (obviously I'm not a Mitt fan). There's two long years ahead of us before that choice begins to arise.

[Koga No Goshi]

.......

If that author thinks running Jeb Bush or Mitt or Sarah Palin in '12 is sufficient reform away from what just got totally backhand-smacked last night, I hope he doesn't represent the brainpower of the GOP.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I don't really know too much about Jeb so I can't say for sure about him. But I do know that he has absolutely no shot of winning anything on a national stage; his name is now poison.

Mitt, before he got sucked into the evangelical trap, ran as a fiscal conservative and was the "I understand the economy" candidate. I think, had he gotten the nod, things might have gone a lot differently in terms of response to the financial crisis. One way or another, Mitt would have had a plan, which is something I can't really say for President-elect Obama or Senator McCain.

As for Palin, she was 4 years ahead of her time. Put her running a state for long enough and you're experienced, no matter how small the state is. Even with four more years of training, I think she's too damaged goods to try for a national office nowadays.

Anyway, this wasn't the author's choice, just a prediction of who would run.

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't really know too much about Jeb so I can't say for sure about him. But I do know that he has absolutely no shot of winning anything on a national stage; his name is now poison.

Mitt, before he got sucked into the evangelical trap, ran as a fiscal conservative and was the "I understand the economy" candidate. I think, had he gotten the nod, things might have gone a lot differently in terms of response to the financial crisis. One way or another, Mitt would have had a plan, which is something I can't really say for President-elect Obama or Senator McCain.

As for Palin, she was 4 years ahead of her time. Put her running a state for long enough and you're experienced, no matter how small the state is. Even with four more years of training, I think she's too damaged goods to try for a national office nowadays.

Anyway, this wasn't the author's choice, just a prediction of who would run.

Agreed. The point was not are these candidates experienced enough or qualified enough in terms of Washington standards of who is fit to run for President on a major ticket. I think IF the GOP is thinking along these lines, it is thinking way off-target in terms of what, exactly, got rejected last night.

People are already predicting that one possible GOP reaction is going to be "we weren't Republican enough", and go even harder back to the far-right base. But I think if it does that, it is, at least for a considerable time being, going to remain marginalized.

This is what I alluded to earlier. John McCain talked about tax cuts (for the wealthy.) If the GOP's response to his loss is... we need someone who says TAX CUTS in a different inflection and at a much louder volume.... then they will only start winning again when the Dems do something major to screw up, or the electorate gets sick of them, or the electorate gets complacent and unalarmed about how bad leadership can be like they did by the end of Clinton's admin.

[Louis VI the Fat]

MCain bet his campaign on the extremist block of the Republicans. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but lose he did.

I still wonder what the outcome would've been if McCain had moved to the centre. The 'Clinton Democrats' didn't automatically rush to Obama. Independents and centrists, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana were up for grabs for a centrist Republican.

I am not a poll God like CountArach, so I am not sure if McCain could've won by moving to the centre like Obama did. But from anecdotal evidence, and even personal preference, I say there were a lot of centrists up for grabs, who were open to a McCain presidency until they were driven away by Palin, by McCain's pandering to the extreme right, by flag waving and 'country first' signs, by a dirty campaign, by McCain ditching his reputiation as an independent Republican.

According to the blog post, we're looking at candidates from four establishments of the GOP: The Populist (either Huck or Palin), the Establishment Conservative (the author suggests Jeb Bush, but that'll never happen in a million years, so it's Romney), the Full-Spectrum Conservative (Jindal), and the National Security Candidate (Gen. Petraeus).

Those are old answers to yesterday's problems. For example, 'National Security' candidates work best when there's a fearmongering president in power.


Besides, it's the economy, stupid! This decides the fate of Democratic candidates.

[Spino]

I hate to say it - Ron Paul would never win an election. Ever.

Well... not one held in the last 50+ years, that's for sure. Paul's philosophy & political temperment is better suited for an America long forgotten or one that exists in the far flung future.

[Hooahguy]

Wow, Republicans created Barack Obama. Who knew? And why should I pay to a "writer" who is incapable of using the word "Democratic" correctly? Last I checked, only the most nose-thumbing partisan hacks were still on that linguistic kick.

If writers like this are going to provide the blueprint, I expect to see the Republicans in the wilderness for a long, long time.

hes actually not republican. hes libertarian and very intelligent.
maybe you should read some more about him.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I chose the fallback, re-think and return to conservative basics for a reason: Time.

Obama is as close to a lock for two terms as we've had since FDR -- maybe since GW. It is utterly irrelevant who the GOP nominates in 2012 except to that person (whose hope of the presidency terminates with that loss -- my bet is that Romney will pass Palin and take it on the chin for the GOP). Short of video featuring President Obama and Usama in flagrante delicto, Obama is a lock. The Dems may lose some ground if their "attack dog wing" goes on a big vengeance spree, but if they follow the more disciplined pace of their President (and I think they will as he's "the one") they will pick up further seats in 2010 and will secure the "one-party cloture" lock on the Senate. It is from that point that the GOP will move forward -- or fade into obscurity.

The GOP needs to dial WAY back, accept minority status as the norm for 8-10 years (which means filibustering and the like on CRUCIAL issues only, and not as an ongoing jab at the eyes of the Dems; it means NOT doing deals with them but suggesting good legislation and valuable ammendments and making them vote it down), and go back to its roots to rebuild. Smaller government, government at the local level must not remain slogans, but must be basic litmus tests for would-be GOP leaders. Tax cuts must be ignored in favor of dialing down the size, scope, role, and spending of the Federal Government. THEN, once the debt starts to shrink, then and only then can we think about tax cuts for anyone -- and those tax cuts should be a fundamental alteration of the tax system, not just a new rate for the big earners.

This is not, in other words, a project of any brevity. The first years will be bleak and then gains measured slowly for some time. We are likely talking about aiming for 2020 or even 2024 -- and we need to be OUT of the executive for that stretch, not climbing on top of it and trying to claim credit for it with an "Eisenhower" adminstration. That's JAG's answer, and it would benefit party first and ideas last. We must eschew that route and effect real change.

[Tribesman]

hes libertarian and very intelligent.

Isn't he the idiot that thought mocking a disabled child was good entertainment ?
Doesn't sound very intelligent does he

[Hooahguy]

Isn't he the idiot that thought mocking a disabled child was good entertainment ?
Doesn't sound very intelligent does he

do you mind backing up that claim?
b/c theres probably much more to that story than you just said.

and AFAIK, no that was Howard Stern, if ur talking about when Stern had a mentally challenged person on his show to mock him.

[Tribesman]

do you mind backing up that claim?

Try the FCC they were the ones that got the complaints about Boortz

[Spino]

What's next for the GOP? Self reflection? Soul searching? Re-evaluation of principles? Yes. Maybe. No. More importantly... why bother?

The Democratic party has done nothing to change since its landslide losses to Reagan and its minority years during the GW Bush administration. It learned absolutely nothing from its losses and if anything, has become more stubborn and arrogant and moved further to the left than ever before. One could say that the Democrats are back in power due to nothing more than a cyclical change of events. The Republican party has had enjoyed a great deal of momentum for a very long time now and was due for a fall. Now add GW Bush & the Neo-Conservative movement and boom, fall from grace and we're back to a pre-Reagan Democratic dominated political landscape.

Correction. The Democratic party did learn one thing from those lean years... they learned to move hard to the center/center-right during an election year... only to snap back to the left once elected. Such a strategy worked wonders for Clinton & Obama, no?

Should the Republicans change? Yes, absolutely. Will they? Probably not. Once again I fall on my tired generational argument. The generation currently running the country and dominating both parties possesses neither the will or the ability to engage in true self reflection and re-invent itself. As they saying goes, 'You can't teach an old dog new tricks' and for the controlling generation whose oldest members are in their mid-60s it is a tall order to expect them or their leaders to change their ways. So look for the Republicans to do exactly what the Democrats have done; bide their time until a major factor like the economy, terrorism, etc. takes its toll on the American people thus compelling them to look for new blood and new answers. Once in power it will be more of the same. Wash, rinse, repeat. Same old .

MCain bet his campaign on the extremist block of the Republicans. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but lose he did.

I still wonder what the outcome would've been if McCain had moved to the centre. The 'Clinton Democrats' didn't automatically rush to Obama. Independents and centrists, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana were up for grabs for a centrist Republican.

I am not a poll God like CountArach, so I am not sure if McCain could've won by moving to the centre like Obama did. But from anecdotal evidence, and even personal preference, I say there were a lot of centrists up for grabs, who were open to a McCain presidency until they were driven away by Palin, by McCain's pandering to the extreme right, by flag waving and 'country first' signs, by a dirty campaign, by McCain ditching his reputiation as an independent Republican.

Those are old answers to yesterday's problems. For example, 'National Security' candidates work best when there's a fearmongering president in power.

Besides, it's the economy, stupid! This decides the fate of Democratic candidates.

Well McCain's history of being a moderate Republican didn't help. He lost but it wasn't a landslide. He had the political misfortune of being associated with a party whose brand had been damaged by an unpopular war, an unpopular president and a massive, global mortgage/credit meltdown that they had very little to do with (and in fairness, did not do enough to stop when they had the chance). I'm pessimistic enough to say that even if McCain had selected a strong running mate like Romney, Giuliani, Thompson or hell, Huckabee, he still would have lost albeit in a much closer race. However you can bet your buttocks that without Sarah Palin the media would have then relegated the VP selection factor to the traditional back burner as it has in the past. Seriously, the media went positively postal on Palin even though she was no better or worse than Quayle or Gorebot ver. 1.0.

Yes, I also wonder how McCain would have fared had the economy been strong and rolling along at a good clip. As the saying goes, 'people vote with their wallets' and clearly most voters were clutching theirs tight when they stepped into the voting booth.

On the other hand Obama's obscenely well funded hype machine kept harping on the 'four more years of George Bush' ad nauseum. Who knows how many sheeple bought into that and jumped on the Obama bandwagon? Sounds snobbish but talk to any successful advertising/marketing executive and they'll show you tangible proof that effective branding does work.

Beyond the issues Obama's past and personal associations would have sunk most candidates but his campaign managed to beat his party's favorite daughter and kept on truckin'. Credit his hype machine, his political savoir-faire and the fact that never before in our history have black folks been hipper or cooler than they are now. If the last 16 years have shown us anything it is that the average American voter is less likely to take into account a candidate's personal character, let alone their real position on the issues than ever before.

Them post-war generation chickens have come home to roost...

[Tribesman]

Well McCain's history of being a moderate Republican didn't help.

That is because he appeared to abandon his history and campaign as if he was Bush III using Bush IIs crew and methods .

[CountArach]

That is because he appeared to abandon his history and campaign as if he was Bush III using Bush IIs crew and methods .

Spot on.

As the campaign wore on the polls showed that more and more people thought he would continue Bush's economic policies.

[Hooahguy]

Try the FCC they were the ones that got the complaints about Boortz

o ya, i remember that!
he was joking though. if you heard the broadcast, that is.
he got some nasty emails after that and the next day clearly expressed that he was, in fact, joking, and later caleld the people who he offended and apologized.
no ones perfect, i guess.

[Koga No Goshi]

The Democratic party has done nothing to change since its landslide losses to Reagan and its minority years during the GW Bush administration. It learned absolutely nothing from its losses and if anything, has become more stubborn and arrogant and moved further to the left than ever before. One could say that the Democrats are back in power due to nothing more than a cyclical change of events. The Republican party has had enjoyed a great deal of momentum for a very long time now and was due for a fall. Now add GW Bush & the Neo-Conservative movement and boom, fall from grace and we're back to a pre-Reagan Democratic dominated political landscape.

That's because, I believe, the Dem Party loses not as a direct result of how "left" it is-- that decides the issue only for ideological right-wingers-- who would not be voting for a Dem in almost any circumstances anyway. But rather because of both misdirection and a propaganda war to both say the Dems are left and equate left as a bad thing, even in the center and among moderates. Zogby studies back during '04 showed that Republicans misidentify which platforms belong to which parties much, much more often than Democrats do, and tend to believe that Democratic platforms which "sound good" floating around without a party attachment, are actually Republican platforms-- and vice-versa with the bad sounding stuff. In short, on the right, there has been a pounded in notion from talk radio and dinner table discussions that if it's a good, desirable or smart idea... it's probably Repubican. And if it's a dumb, unworkable idea, the left probably loves it. A very simple ingroup/outgroup outlook on the issues.

We lose in the propaganda, rhetoric, and lockstepping on the same talking points war -- we rarely lose on the issues themselves. 99% of Republicans all using exactly the same catchy buzzline that they are for middle America will resonate with the voters-- regardless of whether or not those Republicans have a voting record which bears out the rhetoric.

[gaelic cowboy]

MCain bet his campaign on the extremist block of the Republicans. Maybe he didn't have a choice, but lose he did.

I still wonder what the outcome would've been if McCain had moved to the centre. The 'Clinton Democrats' didn't automatically rush to Obama. Independents and centrists, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana were up for grabs for a centrist Republican.

Mcain could not move to the centre cos all the party people in the GOP who do all the slog and lick the envelopes and make the phonecalls are right or hard right and think the centre is a dirty word.

As long as the base of the party are these kinds of people it will be a marginal party who requires the other side to mess up instead of offering an alternative.

Since Mcain could not be expected to change the GOP overnight he needed adependable base to work and get out the vote hence Palin was chosen in the end to ensure republicans voted for MCain at least.

All the Demographic change in the US is making these hard right religous types irrelevant and quicker than they ever imagined

[Oleander Ardens]

I too believe that the "conservatives" have won recently because they were able to talk nicely about values and markets but walked unashamingly openly and covertly for the rich and very rich. How most Americans were able to swallow so much bigotry and dishonesty for so long is beyond me, but gives certainly credit to the political cunning of the neoliberals since Reagan.

If Obama has enough political wisdom it might be possible to hammer the Republicans just by success, hoping in the rational sense of the American voters. A hope that might be futile for the Democrats, because George Bush has so deeply ruined the countrly that he might have to spend much political capital for though choices...

Hard to see what the GOP can do anything to counter the pragmatism of the democrats, their ideology was a disaster, but of course they can try to paint themselves as true Americans and the rest as danger. It worked so long, the party has pushed hard to the right, so I really can't image the emergence of a bipartisan, moderate and pragmatic leader on the right anytime soon. Perhaps after a couple of defeats...

[Fragony]

What is this the pax-probama? What is it with this sudden republican need to change anything the basics are a house made of bricks, it's as solid as can be, but it should focus only on economics because republicans just have the right idea.

edit: And what is it with all this 'new future' nonsense, a black man got chosen for president yes, that is exceptional, considering, so at least consider how hard this can slap you in the face. This shouldn't be seen as a revolution of any sorts that is dangerous thinking.

[gaelic cowboy]

What is this the pax-probama? What is it with this sudden republican need to change anything the basics are a house made of bricks, it's as solid as can be, but it should focus only on economics because republicans just have the right idea.

edit: And what is it with all this 'new future' nonsense, a black man got chosen for president yes, that is exceptional, considering, so at least consider how hard this can slap you in the face. This shouldn't be seen as a revolution of any sorts that is dangerous thinking.

Of course your right man its not the new future at all is it unfortunately its actually the new reality.

Republicans must change because their base doesn't care anymore about good sound conservative principles its obsessed with moralism and terror.

The centre is where its at and the centre is where the value of good conservative principle will resonate.

But if they continue to fight about say Darwin or Roe V Wade they will continue to float right and then they will be depending on voters rejecting Obama not accepting the GOP

[KarlXII]

to quote Neal Boortz from here.

Lol @ Obama's Marxist tendencies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course your right man its not the new future at all is it unfortunately its actually the new reality.

Republicans must change because their base doesn't care anymore about good sound conservative principles its obsessed with moralism and terror.

The centre is where its at and the centre is where the value of good conservative principle will resonate.

But if they continue to fight about say Darwin or Roe V Wade they will continue to float right and then they will be depending on voters rejecting Obama not accepting the GOP

I disagree. Though the need to re-think and re-focus is obvious given recent results, I believe that most conservatives (and most GOPers) would relish a return to the basic principles of conservative governance.

Smaller Government. Government at the most local possible level. Fiscal responsibility.

[Lemur]

Smaller Government. Government at the most local possible level. Fiscal responsibility.

That reminds me of a convo with the wife. She asked me what Republicans believe in. I explained, using very similar language. "Wow, then why aren't we Republicans?" she asked.

"Because they don't do any of that," I replied.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That reminds me of a convo with the wife. She asked me what Republicans believe in. I explained, using very similar language. "Wow, then why aren't we Republicans?" she asked.

"Because they don't do any of that," I replied.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That reminds me of a convo with the wife. She asked me what Republicans believe in. I explained, using very similar language. "Wow, then why aren't we Republicans?" she asked.

"Because they don't do any of that," I replied.

So if they did, you'd be on board?

[Lemur]

Actually, yeah, if the Repubs would get serious about small, responsible government, and if they would stop trying to legislate the bedroom, and maybe distance themselves a little bit from the religious nuts, I would seriously consider joining them.

And, to be fair, if the Dems would get serious about fiscal responsibility and distance themselves from the teachers' union (well, actually from all the unions) and stop being captive to a thousand little grievance groups, I'd consider joining them.

I am not worried that either event will happen.

-edit-

Oh yeah, and the Dems would have to admit that the 2nd amendment is rock-solid, and stop trying to mess with gun ownership. The assault ban, for instance, would have to be a dead issue. And they would need to get open to repealing Roe v. Wade and instead working toward some sort of political consensus about abortion, at least until technology makes the issue obsolete.